Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

ROBERT GARTNER v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (12/16/83)

decided: December 16, 1983.

ROBERT GARTNER, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, dated May 5, 1983.

COUNSEL

Ron Turo, for petitioner.

Arthur R. Thomas, Assistant Chief Counsel, with him Robert A. Greevy, Chief Counsel, Jay C. Waldman, General Counsel, and LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General, for respondent.

Judges Rogers, Craig and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.

Author: Craig

[ 79 Pa. Commw. Page 142]

Robert Gartner, the petitioner and parolee, has appealed from denial of administrative relief following revocation of his parole by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. His motion for summary judgment*fn1 is presently before this court and raises the following questions: (1) Did the board erroneously admit hearsay evidence over timely objection in denial of Gartner's right to confront witnesses? (2) Did the board place Gartner in double jeopardy by finding

[ 79 Pa. Commw. Page 143]

    that his possession of weapons violated two separate parole conditions?

Gartner had been incarcerated for five years, serving a five-to twelve-year sentence in the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, and was paroled on March 30, 1979. On March 30, 1983, the board ordered Gartner recommitted for twenty-four months backtime as a technical parole violator of four general and one special condition of his parole.*fn2

Gartner claims that the evidence introduced at the revocation hearing consisted entirely of hearsay, and that his counsel timely objected. Specifically, Gartner claims that his constitutional*fn3 and statutory*fn4 rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses were violated because the parole agent who filed the charges was not

[ 79 Pa. Commw. Page 144]

    present at the hearing; rather, Parole Supervisor Comiskey read the agent's affidavit into evidence.

A careful review of the record reveals that, contrary to Gartner's allegations, his counsel did not timely object to the parole supervisor reading the affidavit of Agent Richardson into evidence. In fact, Gartner's counsel stated on the record that he had ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.